ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2548, 24 August 1915, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

SOFT GOODS DISPUTE

NO RADICAL CHANGE LIKELY

Tho conference of employers and the union in the drapery trade having -proved abortive, the demands of the Wellington Soft Goods Employees' Union were again considered by the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and associated with him. were Messrs. E. F. Duthie (employers' representative) and J. A. M'Oullough (workers' representative). Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell appeared in the interests of' the employers, and Mr. M. J. Keardon conducted thie case for the union.' His Honour expressed regret that no settlement had. been effected. • ' Mr. Beardon asked His Honour to state definitely what the Court would consider, and said that the'employers took it that only tho wages of juniors would bo considered. The union placed a different vieiv on tho question of the lower-paid workers, and thought that seniors, now getting iC2 15s. per week, should have an increase. The present wage for senior female workers was dCI 7s. (id. Mr. Reardo'n suggested that they might reasonably, be allowed to lay their whole case before the Court. 0 Mr! Grenfell said that the desire of the employers was that 110 award should be made. He supplemented his arguments to show that the volume of business in the past was reduced, and that a reduction could be expected in the future. His Honour 6aid that the intention of the .Court had been to give something like a living wage for lower-paid workers. There seemed to be difficulties in the grading. Mr. Reardori protested against the method of procedure, contending that ho did not have the right to Teply to the arguments advanced by the employers. His Honour said that the Court would retire for consideration. They were placing moro reliance upon the common-sense effect of tho war 011 this, trade. In the course of a few days they would have drastic proposals brought down to meet the extraordinary charges which' would be oast upon the community. The Financial Statement would involve a high increase in taxation,, and. the spending power of the people was certain to be very, much diminished. That lessened spending power would fall unquestionably on tho drapery trade. The Court adjourned to consider the case. , j . When the case was resumed Mr. Grenfell put in a telegram from Christchurcli stating that .the employers , considered the time inopportune for an advance in the minimum wage. His Honour: That means a refusal of the suggestion made. Very well, we must simply go on with the. evidence. To Mr. Reardon he sa-id that the Court was practically decided to make no radical alterations. Mr. Reardon said that if the employers were prepared to put their proposals at the conference before the Court us their counter-proposals, the case might be simplified. Mr. Grenfell: The offer at the conference was without prejudice. Our counterproposals are practically a continuation of the old. award. . Consideration of the case was then/ gone 011 with. The wages demands of the union were as und&r:—Departmental managers, ,£5 10s.; window-dressers, ,§( 10s.; canvassers, ,£3 10a.; senior assistants males), «£3 10s.; females, JSI ss. Apprentices wages from the first to the sixth year ranged from 15s. for males and 12s. Gd. for females to X 2 15s. and XI 17s. Gd. For storemen the demands were:-Head or only storeman, 55.; storemen or paokers, £3; apprentices, from 15s. to £3. Evidence was. then called, but the ca=e ?? 8 .? ot , fibbed when, the Court arose: It will be resumed this morning.